No bugs, birds, snakes, worms or mammals were harmed in its execution.
Musings, thoughts, concepts, politics, junk science, atheists pretending they don't have a religion, fact or fiction, truth or opinion.
Why is there so LITTLE critical thinking that we don't realize WHEN we are being misled by biased individuals who have sucked us in to believing their ideas?
This is one very simple attempt to bring SOME balance in an unbalanced age.

Search This Blog

FrontPage Magazine » FrontPage

Atheism Religion

I have found in my discussions with atheists, or neo-atheists, certain patterns.

They mock religion, especially Christianity for not having evidence of a God and of swallowing everything by faith.

The interesting thing about atheists is that they do EXACTLY the same thing! Why don't they know it?

They accept the teachings of well-known atheists by faith. If these teachings are questioned you will most likely run into flak of one form or another. If they cannot answer your critique they resort to ....

3) Giving their opinion and expecting YOU to take it by faith with no evidence.

4) Complicated discourse which is difficult to follow even if you have two degrees which I assume you are supposed to accept as the atheistic "papal" bull. There may be some truth in part of that.

5) The red herring technique. By this I mean they will throw emotional remarks about something not on the topic but seemingly designed to make you forget that they haven't answered your points.

6) Opinionated remarks such as "it is an accepted fact" or "everyone knows".

7) Emotional accusations such as

-"you are probably so indoctrinated that you wouldn't be able to see the truth ...."

-"There is little danger of sharia law being considered in North America. What I worry about is a Christian-run state." [This same individual was so worried that he toured the vatican while in Rome.]

8) If you DARE to question articles by "esteemed atheists" you may be kicked off their forums because you actually had an answer that made the author look ignorant which he was.

For example, Mr. Ehrman has a lot of ridicule and flaming rhetoric towards the Bible. His "selected verses" which are taken totally out of context and try to represent Christianity as big brother from George Orwell. This of course displays ignorance of the Christian contributions to Western society that you can find elsewhere in this blog.

I quoted verses to show that Mr. Ehrman was incorrect in the meaning of certain verses which he quoted to prove several of his points. I did not flame. I simply stated that Mr. Ehrman's ignorance of the Bible and Christianity was displayed by the selective way he took verses out of context.

The next time I went back to RichardDawkins.net, all my answers had been erased even tho they were polite and to the point.

9) Angry outbursts and insults which have nothing to do with the issues raised. This often happens when you make a good point that cannot be answered by them. It is their way of trying to escape answering a valid question.

10) Atheists assume you are stupid if you are a believer. To them only atheists can be smart.

11) Atheists will claim that YOU are in denial when you do not agree with their ideas but at the same time, they display that they are in denial when they claim that Hitler for example was a Christian.

My answer to that is that at one time he may have attended church. However just because you once played in a barn does not make you a cow.

Hitler displayed the same type of behavior as atheists:

- he made up his own set of beliefs.

I do not see any of the characteristics of Jesus [Yeshua] or his teachings in Hitler.

Yeshua never told people to go and kill a race of people. He said, "Pray for your enemies." So even if that race were your enemy, you as a Christian must pray for them. Somehow I cannot picture Hitler praying about how to kill Jews and undesirables. Something just does not click there.

Yeshua never told his disciples to steal homes, take belongings, torture, starve and throw into cruel flea-ridden camps those that would not believe what he said.

Instead he said to "Love your enemies and pray for those that despitefully use you."

In my experience, atheists ask Christians for evidence of God but make statements with no evidence and expect you to simply accept their correctness by faith.

Atheism is a religion. Religion is a set of beliefs that you hold to. Atheists hold to beliefs whether true or not.

They mock you for believing in an unseen God but at the same time believe every word that their esteemed "supreme beings" otherwise known as the "Supreme Atheist" of the time utters.

Atheism has real problems because there is no set of values, no absolutes except that they are absolutely sure they are correct, no leaders who one can look up to as an example of what an atheist should be, no morals since each individual can make up his own mind at any moment what he should do.

Another atheist may agree or disagree with his actions. They have no leaders who have risen from the dead, no stone tablets with a code of conduct that they all ascribe to, no Mother Theresa's or Albert Schweitzers.

Because they make up their values as they go along, we often see atheists like Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and many others responsible for mass slaughters.

However they do seem to all have a rage if you don't believe them as Peter Hitchens writes about his brother Christopher Hitchens.

If you go to YouTube, and watch videos of Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens or Madelyn Murray O'hair [have not checked for Miss O'hair's videos but watched her lash out in vitriolic anger at people on Phil Donahue], you will see their condescending attitude to believers and often outright anger.

I would much rather do my best to follow the example of Jesus Christ or Mother Theresa any day than hold these men in high esteem as the superior minds that they are believed to be.

It is unfortunate that Christopher may be dying of cancer. We all wish him well. Just because we do not agree with his atheistic stance does not mean we have no concern for his life.

Quite the contrary. I believe Christians pray for the life of Christopher, that he may be healed or recover.

Recently, I listened to an audiobook by a militant advocate for atheism. As the author himself read his own work with spiteful sarcasm and contempt, it made me wonder why he was so angry.

The Bible tells us that a rejection of God can actually lead to a more hateful attitude toward Him: “Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind . . . [to become] haters of God” (Rom. 1:28-30).

Turning one’s back on God does not lead to secular neutrality. Indeed, recent militant atheists have shown their desire to remove any reference to a Creator from culture.

When we hear about atheists trying to remove crosses or the Ten Commandments from society, it’s easy to respond to their hatred of God with our own hatred. But we’re exhorted to defend the truth with an attitude of love, “in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth” (2 Tim. 2:25).

The next time you see the works or hear the words of a hater of God, do an attitude check. Then ask God for a spirit of humility and pray that the offender might come to the knowledge of the truth.

Lord, help us not respond in kind To those who hate and turn from You; Instead, help us to love and pray That someday they’ll accept what’s true. —Sper

========================================

Good Advice For Discussion

Realize that a dialogue should not be about you, the opponent, the turf, or the superiority but about making the right decision. Accept the fact that you just might be wrong and treat the opposition with respect.

There are two parts to every argument: A position and a bunch of points that support it. Always separate them and be clear on them both. “I support solution A. The reasons for my recommendation are as follows…” On the flip side, learn to identify and separate these two parts in your opponent’s argument. If you can’t do so reliably, ask for clarification.

Never accept an argument that you don’t understand. Ask for clarification.

To each decision, there are objectives (what we want to achieve) and alternatives (how we can achieve it). Are you disagreeing on the objectives or on the alternatives? Make it clear and ask the opponent to clarify their position. This is very important as often there is a lengthy raging battle over easily reconcilable implementation preferences.

Not to belabor this, but…choose the language both you and your opponent understand.

When you make your point, nothing is as effective as the masterful command of the language and use of relevant examples and metaphors.

Often, your opponent will pass his beliefs and opinions for an unquestionable truth. So, be on guard for and readily reject ad hominem attacks (when your opponent targets your persona and not your argument). For example: “I don’t see how this approach can ever work, coming from someone who can’t control his weight, let alone an initiative of this importance!”

Watch out for arguments that say that something is right just because it is either new or old. These are known as ad novitam and ad antiquamarguments.

Don’t fall for arguments that rely on wide acceptance and popularity. What’s right for many is not necessarily right for you, even if the others are in the same industry, market, or building.

Beware of the straw man attacks, which happen when the opposition objects not to your position but to a similar but much weaker and sometimes ridiculous one. For instance, you say: “I am of the opinion that this application will not resolve the issue, because…” Your opponent retorts, ignoring your argument: “Julie, of all people, I wouldn’t expect to hear it from the CIO that high technology is not the way to go!”

Red herring anyone? Watch for arguments with little to no connection to the issue at stake, which are introduced to misdirect the attention of you and the rest of the audience. This also often happens inadvertently.

Sometimes you may lose on the basis of unobtainable perfection. Your way may be the best available but not perfect, while “perfect” is either out of the question or not viable, such as due to prohibitive costs. When you feel that the conversation has fallen into this rut, call a spade a spade, invite the other party to acknowledge that perfection is not possible, and talk about mitigation of the imperfections. You may still lose this battle, but you’ll know you have done your best.

You have probably noticed that in a number of points I advised you to “watch out” or “beware of” or to “be on guard” against various acts of chicanery. It goes without saying that you shouldn’t commit these transgressions either. The Golden Rule applies.

I recommend Juice as a simple, easy to use, pod downloader and organizer.

Ravi is a very intelligent man whom I have heard speak many times. He explains how atheism has no answers to many questions.

If you are NOT an atheist you should hear Ravi to encourage your belief. If you ARE an atheist then you should hear Ravi to obtain the justification for your atheism.

================================

Arguments With Atheists Part One

I will present Brian's comments that need an answer and then my answer. [I may leave out certain non-critical parts of his quote for simplicity.]

Brian : I would have to say it is unlikely there is a God. Therefore I regard myself as an Atheist.

Charles:Using Brian's format: I would have to say it is VERY unlikely that there is NOT a God! No evidence or argument presented but just a statement. We can all make statements including me. The only difference is that mine are right (:-) grin

Brian: I know very few Atheists that would say dogmatically that there is 100% no chance of there being a supernatural power one could call God. Even Richard Dawkins would not say that.

Charles:All atheists that I have dealt with ,ALL, say there is NO GOD. In fact the definition of an atheist is one who believes there is no God. If you are not sure, which seems to fit Brian, then you are an agnostic.

Brian: All the evidence I have seen so far has been flawed in one way or other. The logical arguments, the physical evidence, once you delve beneath the surface they don't hold up. I've been through a lot of this stuff and I'm sure there is way more that I haven't seen.

Charles:No evidence is presented in Brian's statement. Am I just to BELIEVE him? How can anyone arbitrarily say "all the evidence I have seen is flawed"? The fact that you say that means you have set yourself up as a superior being to the beings, such as myself, who have seen the EVIDENCE pointing DIRECTLY TO A GOD. So if you are a superior being and I am supposed to believe you, then you have created a god, that god being the superior being, in your eyes, who happens to be YOU. [So Brian does believe in a god... that god or superior being is him." On the other hand if he is NOT claiming that his reasoning or observations are superior, then perhaps my reasoning or observations are superior to his. Who's to know?(:-)

Charles: All the evidence I have seen that declares there is no God, in my view is flawed because everyone believes in some being who is superior to themselves, unless you are the highest of egocentrics, who believes NO ONE could be smarter than yourself.

Brian: "It always comes down to personal experience."

Charles:Exactly! Your personal experience says there is no god or God and mine says THERE IS A GOD! Now to present some ideas which do not hold water in the atheistic religion.

PROBLEMS WITH BEING AN ATHEIST

Is it possible that Brian [or anyone] has less than 10% of the world's knowledge? I am sure Brian would say, "Of course!"

Is it possible that Brian has less than 5% of the world's knowledge? In which case, I can hear Brian saying, "Obviously! I probably have less than 1% of the world's knowledge!"

Then I ask a simple question: "COULD GOD EXIST IN THE 99% OF THE WORLD'S KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE?"

Any reasonable person would have to admit the veracity [truth] of that logic. Of course God can exist in that knowledge!

I can say that "Platypuses do not exist! They are fictional! People have just been fooling with our brain by drawing a half-beaver-half-duck like animal! "

Just because I have NEVER SEEN a platypus, does not prove the non-existence of one, does it?

Just because I have never seen a coelacanth does not mean that they do not exist does it?

See here. The coelacanth was a fish thought to be extinct until 1938 when one was caught ALIVE! IT DOES EXIST! " "...astounding coelacanth ("see-la-kanth"), the fusion of life and time, that following a supposed extinction of 65 million years, head-lined into human consciousness with its discovery alive in 1938."

So Brian and other atheists have NOT FOUND EVIDENCE FOR A LIVING GOD.

SCIENTISTS had NOT FOUND evidence for a LIVING COELACANTH until they did!

Why was one found in 1938 and not before?

Could it be that people were LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACES? Of course! They finally by accident found the RIGHT PLACE and also found a fish thought to be extinct but was still alive!!

God is still alive even if you have looked in the wrong places! There are many intelligent famous people who like the scientists did NOT find God UNTIL they looked in THE RIGHT PLACE!

Rules for Comments

We do not publish ANY links which do not have reasons for going to the link.

You should give your evidence to support your idea and then show a link which backs you up. But just putting in a link and saying "go here to see what I mean".

We do not publish ad hominem attacks, insults, insulting labels or stereotypes. In seeking truth, one does not find it by these immature and primitive methods.

A Common Method of Presenting Evidence

1. State your opinion

2. State your reason

3. Give any specific references you wish which support your point of view. Example of insulting ad hominem attack statement. "Atheists are all hypocrites and use insults when they cannot be present indisputable evidence."

What is wrong? 1. You do not know all atheists and therefore cannot make any statements about all of them.

You could say something like, "The atheists I have had discussions with criticize others and yet do the same things they criticize others for." "Most atheists whose comments I read stereotype all people who believe in Christianity, Judaism or any other form of religion except their own Atheist religion". 2. Calling people names is an ad hominem attack. 3. Putting all people of one group together and making statements about them is a stereotype.

Sound argument is backed by evidence not throwing insults which are like "supposed adults" throwing stones at someone like a kid would.

Intelligent Design Network :: Seeking Objectivity in Origins Science

The Amazing Kindle !

Some recommend the more expensive 3G Kindle in order to reach the internet wherever you are to download new books.

Email Required

I have chosen to require a Google account. This is to help prevent mindless comments which need not be considered by those who have one.

I promise I will keep your personal information secret and only use it for purpose of communicating with YOU personally. If what you have to say is important then you should have no objection. If it is a haphazard comment, then perhaps it does not deserve to be published anyway.

Not to discourage but we need to be able to tell you directly why your comment was not published so you can bring it up to the acceptable standards for this site.

Flaming is not allowed. Emotional baggage should be left at home or on the psychiatrists couch. If you cannot speak civilly without it, then perhaps look into fixing that first and come back. We are not referring to mild teasing.

Comments with no evidence that require me to simply believe in the faith of you saying it will NOT be published. Anyone can have their opinion but we are looking for facts when we discuss factual topics such as atheism and ID.

Flaming includes insults, sarcasm, and resorting to emotional outbursts to avoid answering a point. There can be no reasonable discussion with someone who has a flamethrower aimed at you (:-)

I will NOT as Dawkins.net does, reject your comment simply because you disagree. However REASONS must be given for your disagreement. Don't make me take a leap of faith to believe you unless of course your name is Yeshua of 1st century fame.

Yes we value your comments provided they are civil. If the Google thing does not require an email address I will require registration so I can communicate with you.

Thank you! Have a great day and I hope to hear from you!

Christian Bloggers Network

I Promise

I promise to place here ONLY links from Amazon.ca or other locations which I have read or used myself and I personally recommend them. In the case of product links, all links will be the best products from my research and years of doing computers. .... CharlesFor more recommendations and freebies, see CPEDLEY.COM

Why Make The Same Mistakes?

My hope is that if you see mistakes which I have made, you will NOT have to make them yourself.

Learn! Make your own mistakes. Or better yet, don't!

Nobody has yet paid me for any of these writings so I am not trying to please anyone except the author of truth and me.

Hope you like them but if you don't, that's okay. Someday when you get older, you will ..... (:-) It's a joke! Or ...... maybe not.

Soul Shepherding

Search Canada

Canadian Product

Canadian Links

US Links

Canadian Links Below

What's So Great About Christianity?

Kindle Edition

A Must for Parents & Educators & University-Bound Students !

Plaxo Badge

Rules for Civilized Discussion

[These are some rules which are accepted here as being fair and balanced. It is also why we may delete and not publish your comments if you break them. It is only fair that readers do not have to see a lot of personal psychological drivvle in trying to see both sides of an argument.]]

Good Advice For Discussion

Realize that a dialogue should not be about you, the opponent, the turf, or the superiority but about making the right decision. Accept the fact that you just might be wrong and treat the opposition with respect.

There are two parts to every argument: A position and a bunch of points that support it. Always separate them and be clear on them both. “I support solution A. The reasons for my recommendation are as follows…” On the flip side, learn to identify and separate these two parts in your opponent’s argument. If you can’t do so reliably, ask for clarification.

Never accept an argument that you don’t understand. Ask for clarification.

To each decision, there are objectives (what we want to achieve) and alternatives (how we can achieve it). Are you disagreeing on the objectives or on the alternatives? Make it clear and ask the opponent to clarify their position. This is very important as often there is a lengthy raging battle over easily reconcilable implementation preferences.

Not to belabor this, but…choose the language both you and your opponent understand.

When you make your point, nothing is as effective as the masterful command of the language and use of relevant examples and metaphors.

Often, your opponent will pass his beliefs and opinions for an unquestionable truth. So, be on guard for and readily reject ad hominem attacks (when your opponent targets your persona and not your argument). For example: “I don’t see how this approach can ever work, coming from someone who can’t control his weight, let alone an initiative of this importance!”

Watch out for arguments that say that something is right just because it is either new or old. These are known as ad novitam and ad antiquamarguments.

Don’t fall for arguments that rely on wide acceptance and popularity. What’s right for many is not necessarily right for you, even if the others are in the same industry, market, or building.

Beware of the straw man attacks, which happen when the opposition objects not to your position but to a similar but much weaker and sometimes ridiculous one. For instance, you say: “I am of the opinion that this application will not resolve the issue, because…” Your opponent retorts, ignoring your argument: “Julie, of all people, I wouldn’t expect to hear it from the CIO that high technology is not the way to go!”

Red herring anyone? Watch for arguments with little to no connection to the issue at stake, which are introduced to misdirect the attention of you and the rest of the audience. This also often happens inadvertently.

Sometimes you may lose on the basis of unobtainable perfection. Your way may be the best available but not perfect, while “perfect” is either out of the question or not viable, such as due to prohibitive costs. When you feel that the conversation has fallen into this rut, call a spade a spade, invite the other party to acknowledge that perfection is not possible, and talk about mitigation of the imperfections. You may still lose this battle, but you’ll know you have done your best.

You have probably noticed that in a number of points I advised you to “watch out” or “beware of” or to “be on guard” against various acts of chicanery. It goes without saying that you shouldn’t commit these transgressions either. The Golden Rule applies.

Fair Use Provision

All material here is used for educational purposes only.Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Original material is copyright Charles Pedley and the Pedley Foundation. It may be used by third parties subject only to credit being given to Charles Pedley and a link to http://charlespedley.blogspot.com